NY Post: Biden's daughter caught snorting cocaine on video?

[ajk23az]

FRIEND OF BIDEN'S DAUGHTER SHOPPING TAPE OF HER ALLEGEDLY DOING COCAINE
By BRAD HAMILTON

Posted: 7:01 pm
March 28, 2009

A friend of the daughter of Vice President Joseph Biden is attempting to hawk a videotape that he claims shows Ashley Biden snorting cocaine at a house party this month in Delaware.

An anonymous male "friend" of Biden took the video, said Thomas Dunlap, a lawyer representing the seller. Dunlap and another man claiming to be a lawyer showed The Post about 90 seconds of 43-minute tape, saying it was legally obtained and that Biden was aware she was being filmed. The Post refused to pay for the video.

The video shows a 20-something woman with light skin and long brown hair taking a red straw from her mouth and bending over a desk, inserting the straw into her nostril and snorting from lines of white powder.

She then stands up and begins talking with other people in the room. A young man looks on from behind her, facing the camera. The lawyers said he was Biden's boyfriend of some years.

The camera follows the woman from a few feet away, focusing on her as she moves around the room. It appears not to be concealed. At one point she shouts, "Shut the fñ-ñ-ñ- up!"

The woman appears to resemble the 27-year-old Biden, a social worker who was a visible presence during her father's campaign for the White House.

The dialogue is difficult to discern, but the woman makes repeated references to the drugs, said the lawyers, who said they viewed the tape about 15 times.

"At one point she pretty much complains that the line isn't big enough," said the second lawyer, who declined to identify himself. "And she talks about her dad."

Vice President Biden has been an outspoken crusader against drugs, coining the term "Drug Czar" while campaigning for a more forceful "war on drugs" in 1982.

The lawyers declined to name the person who shot the video, but said he knew Ashley Biden well and had attended other parties with her at which there were illegal drugs. The lawyers said the shooter used a camera with a hard-drive that he later destroyed, drilling into the device and tossing it into a lake.

The woman in the video acknowledges the camera in a way that makes it clear she knows she's being taped, the lawyers said, waving at it during a part of the video not shown to The Post.

No one else in the video is seen using the drugs. The portion of the tape shown to The Post ends shortly after the woman's alleged ingestion.

The shooter claims that he previously tape-recorded Biden at a party in August but was unsuccessful in his attempts to sell that video, they said.

A US media company offered $250,000 for the footage and access to the person who shot the tape, according to the lawyers. Another company, based overseas, offered $225,000, they said. The video shooter was hoping to get $2 million for the footage, then lowered his expectation to $400,000, they said.

The unnamed lawyer hinted that his client had additional information that could embarrass the vice president's daughter.

"The higher the price, the more he'll reveal," said the lawyer.

The lawyers said the video shooter was afraid of being identified and prosecuted for his role in the alleged drug use. "He's got a criminal defense attorney," said Dunlap.

The other lawyer said Biden didn't have secret service protection at the time of the party because she complained about agents blocking her driveway.

"She complained to her dad about it and he got rid of them," he said.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/03282009/news/nationalnews/friend_of_bidens_daughter_shopping_tape__161772.ht m

[ajk23az]

WORLD EXCLUSIVE: Vice President Biden’s Daughter Caught Up In Cocaine Scandal

An explosive video being shopped to media outlets has plunged the White House and Vice President Joe Biden into a cocaine scandal, RadarOnline.com has learned exclusively.

The video shows a woman, who is represented by the seller and his attorneys to be Biden’s daughter Ashley, snorting several lines of cocaine.

The tape has been viewed by a RadarOline.com freelance reporter who confirms the woman looks identical to Ashley Biden.

A law firm in Washington, D.C. is representing the seller of the tape in brokering a deal and several news organizations have seen the footage.

In addition to RadarOnline.com, representatives for a major metropolitan daily U.S. newspaper, a large British newspaper and the National Enquirer have all viewed the tape.

The woman on the tape clearly resembles Ashley Biden, 27, who is a social worker employed with the Delaware Department of Children, Youth and Families. She is also a board member of the Delaware YWCA organization.

The tape was shot this year.

On the tape a man cuts up five lines of what is said to be cocaine. The woman who the seller says is Ashley then jokes with the man that the lines aren’t big enough.

The man hands her a rolled-up dollar bill and she proceeds to walk a few steps to a table where the cocaine is cut. She pulls her hair back, bends down and snorts a line.

Four lines of white powdery substance are clearly visible on the table, which is in front of a computer.

After she snorts the first line, the woman said to be Ashley lifts her head and wipes her nose. She then snorts a second and third line before the tape cuts off.

The tape was made without her knowledge. It is being shopped for $250,000.

The events on the tape are represented as taking place at a party in Wilmington, Delaware and the woman said to be Ashley is with a boyfriend.

The cocaine is done amid a party scene with loud music playing and several people talking at the same time.

The tape is approximately two minutes in length.

News clips show that Ashley Biden was once arrested for marijuana possession while she was a college student in New Orleans in 1999. The charges were later dismissed.

In 2002, The Los Angeles Times reported that Ashley, then 21, was arrested on a misdemeanor charge of obstructing a police officer outside a Chicago bar.

RadarOnline.com is attempting to reach Ashley Biden for comment.

http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2009/03/world-exclusive-vice-president-biden’s-daughter-caught-cocaine-scandal

[Rogah]

Say it ain't so, Joe..!!

[Danny White]

IF this is true, this is obviously an issue for the Biden family to handle in private, and I hope people give them their space to deal with it.

I can't stand Biden and I think he's a raging idiot, but I'm not going to pile on him here for this.

These kids of these high-profile politicians have enough to deal with without people putting their personal lives under a microscope. They didn't ask to be in the public eye, that's for sure.

[Beast_from_East]

So this is a copy made after the original video was destroyed by the photographer by drilling a hole in the hard drive and throwing it in a lake.

So we dont have the original, just some boot-leg copy and apparently the women never identifies herself as Biden's daughter, she only "appears to resemble" Biden's daughter. The photographer wanted $2 mill, then dropped his demands to $400,000 for this boot-leg copy of a girl that resembles Biden's daughter doing cocaine.


Sorry, I find this very hard to believe.

[ABQCOWBOY]

IF this is true, this is obviously an issue for the Biden family to handle in private, and I hope people give them their space to deal with it.

I can't stand Biden and I think he's a raging idiot, but I'm not going to pile on him here for this.

These kids of these high-profile politicians have enough to deal with without people putting their personal lives under a microscope. They didn't ask to be in the public eye, that's for sure.

No kidding. Just like Palin and her daughters.

Double Standards but I do agree that, like Sarah Palin, this should be an internal matter.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Sorry, I find this very hard to believe.

Shocker.

[Jon88]

More people than you think have done it.

[ninja]

IF this is true, this is obviously an issue for the Biden family to handle in private, and I hope people give them their space to deal with it.

I can't stand Biden and I think he's a raging idiot, but I'm not going to pile on him here for this.

These kids of these high-profile politicians have enough to deal with without people putting their personal lives under a microscope. They didn't ask to be in the public eye, that's for sure.

Yeah, right. I'm sure you would feel the same way if it were Cheney's daughter os Bush's daughter.

Why is it a private matter? Last time I checked, cocaine was illegal. That, my friend, makes it a public matter. And she works for social services. Which means she sould be fired.

Maybe there's some sex tapes of her to go with it. That would be nice, very nice. Girls Gone Wild, VP Style.

[peplaw06]

Yeah, right. I'm sure you would feel the same way if it were Cheney's daughter os Bush's daughter.

Why is it a private matter? Last time I checked, cocaine was illegal. That, my friend, makes it a public matter. And she works for social services. Which means she sould be fired.

Maybe there's some sex tapes of her to go with it. That would be nice, very nice. Girls Gone Wild, VP Style.LOL... DW is pretty conservative there bud.

[DragonCowboy]

I'm sure you would feel the same way if it were Cheney's daughter os Bush's daughter.


I thought ninjas were well aware of their surroundings?

[MetalHead]

So this is a copy made after the original video was destroyed by the photographer by drilling a hole in the hard drive and throwing it in a lake.

So we dont have the original, just some boot-leg copy and apparently the women never identifies herself as Biden's daughter, she only "appears to resemble" Biden's daughter. The photographer wanted $2 mill, then dropped his demands to $400,000 for this boot-leg copy of a girl that resembles Biden's daughter doing cocaine.


Sorry, I find this very hard to believe.

Shocker..if it was Bristol Palin or the Bush Twins....Heaven knows...

[Vintage]

Don't care.

Didn't care when Bush twins were off doing whatever it was they were accused of.

Didn't care when Clinton had Cigar-gate.

Etc, etc, etc.

[Rogah]

So this is a copy made after the original video was destroyed by the photographer by drilling a hole in the hard drive and throwing it in a lake.

So we dont have the original, just some boot-leg copy and apparently the women never identifies herself as Biden's daughter, she only "appears to resemble" Biden's daughter. The photographer wanted $2 mill, then dropped his demands to $400,000 for this boot-leg copy of a girl that resembles Biden's daughter doing cocaine.


Sorry, I find this very hard to believe.I am reserving judgement, but it will be interesting to hear a statement of denial.

[MetalHead]

Don't care.

Didn't care when Bush twins were off doing whatever it was they were accused of.

Didn't care when Clinton had Cigar-gate.

Etc, etc, etc.You better care.
Actions define character.

[ninja]

LOL... DW is pretty conservative there bud.

That's nice. He's probably a really nice guy. But, this is a time to attack Dems at any chance and take no prisoners. Unless, one is content with losing elections and watching the wretched Dems seize and exploit every opportunity.

Expose the Democrats for the hypocrites they are.

Innocent people are getting killed by drug gangs in Mexico who get their money from losers who do drugs. So, its more than just some "private matter" between some chick and her idiot daddy.

[masomenos]

You better care.
Actions define character.

I'd actually argue that your character is what dictates your actions.

That said, I don't think that putting some powder in your nose is a sign of poor character.

[peplaw06]

That's nice. He's probably a really nice guy. But, this is a time to attack Dems at any chance and take no prisoners. Unless, one is content with losing elections and watching the wretched Dems seize and exploit every opportunity.

Expose the Democrats for the hypocrites they are.

Innocent people are getting killed by drug gangs in Mexico who get their money from losers who do drugs. So, its more than just some "private matter" between some chick and her idiot daddy.People like you are why politicians and politics in general suck. Playing these damn gotcha games. Some 27 year old doing lines of coke has nothing to do with "Democrats."

This guy who's trying to sell this video is contemptible IMO. You're no different, because you're trying to capitalize on something, when in reality it's completely irrelevant.

[Rogah]

I'd actually argue that your character is what dictates your actions.

That said, I don't think that putting some powder in your nose is a sign of poor character.I am not sure I agree with you there... I mean, we're not just talking about some joint (which she's been busted for in the past).

Don't get me wrong... I don't think using cocaine makes someone completely irredeemable for life... but I think it shows poor character and judgement at the time they are using it.

[masomenos]

That's nice. He's probably a really nice guy. But, this is a time to attack Dems at any chance and take no prisoners. Unless, one is content with losing elections and watching the wretched Dems seize and exploit every opportunity.

Expose the Democrats for the hypocrites they are.

Innocent people are getting killed by drug gangs in Mexico who get their money from losers who do drugs. So, its more than just some "private matter" between some chick and her idiot daddy.

I think the point was that you implied that DW would take a different stance if this story was about the daughters of Bush/Cheney. He wouldn't.

Also, that's a completely warped way of looking at politics.

[Danny White]

That's nice. He's probably a really nice guy. But, this is a time to attack Dems at any chance and take no prisoners. Unless, one is content with losing elections and watching the wretched Dems seize and exploit every opportunity.

Expose the Democrats for the hypocrites they are.

Innocent people are getting killed by drug gangs in Mexico who get their money from losers who do drugs. So, its more than just some "private matter" between some chick and her idiot daddy.

Disagree with me if you want... that's fine.

Just don't accuse me of being a Democrat apologist. A vicious slur like that is absolutely uncalled for and hitting below the belt. :D

To the issue at hand, I don't think harping on stuff like this is the way to win elections. I actually think it damages you more than it helps if you focus on family members, etc. I think it hurt the Dems when they went after Palin and her family.

Certainly if she broke laws, it's a matter for the authorities, so if you want to say it's "public" then I guess it's public in that sense. But I don't think it's an issue that has a whole lot of political purchase.

[ninja]

That said, I don't think that putting some powder in your nose is a sign of poor character.

Is it a sign of stupidity? Is it the sign of a loser? Talk about lowering the character bar.

[masomenos]

I am not sure I agree with you there... I mean, we're not just talking about some joint (which she's been busted for in the past).

Don't get me wrong... I don't think using cocaine makes someone completely irredeemable for life... but I think it shows poor character and judgement at the time they are using it.

Poor character in what way though? Is it simply because she's breaking the law?

[DIAF]

I wonder if John Kerry was at that party!

http://www.usmagazine.com/files/john-kerry-tmz-b.jpg

[masomenos]

Is it a sign of stupidity? Is it the sign of a loser? Talk about lowering the character bar.

I don't think that it's either of those things, no. Other than the fact that doing coke is illegal, I don't think that the actual intake of the drug is anymore of a sign of poor character than drinking alcohol or smoking cigs.

[Rogah]

As far as I am concerned, I will take the same approach I do when such accusations arise: I give the accused the presumption of innocence until something that resembles solid evidence is presented.

I am not someone that requires an unrealistic burden of proof but right now there is absolutely nothing by way of solid evidence whatsoever. All we have is the word of an individual who is obviously interested in financial gain. So for now, I will give her the benefit of the doubt and observe how things play out.

[Rogah]

Poor character is what way though? Is it simply because she's breaking the law?No, it's not so much a matter of breaking the law. I've been known to break a few of those myself :D It's poor character to engage in such self-destructive behavior, risking addiction and experimenting with such a dangerous drug - a drug that is taken for no other reason than to get high.

Like I said in a previous post, I don't consider it something that would destroy someone's character for the rest of their lives... but it certainly shows poor judgement and, IMHO, poor character at the time they do it.

[masomenos]

No, it's not so much a matter of breaking the law. I've been known to break a few of those myself :D It's poor character to engage in such self-destructive behavior, risking addiction and experimenting with such a dangerous drug - a drug that is taken for no other reason than to get high.

Like I said in a previous post, I don't consider it something that would destroy someone's character for the rest of their lives... but it certainly shows poor judgement and, IMHO, poor character at the time they do it.

Well, wouldn't you have to say that drinking alcohol or smoking cigarettes shows equally poor character?

I won't argue about the judgment part though.

[Hostile]

That's nice. He's probably a really nice guy. But, this is a time to attack Dems at any chance and take no prisoners. Unless, one is content with losing elections and watching the wretched Dems seize and exploit every opportunity.

Expose the Democrats for the hypocrites they are.

Innocent people are getting killed by drug gangs in Mexico who get their money from losers who do drugs. So, its more than just some "private matter" between some chick and her idiot daddy.This post is exactly what is wrong with politics. Congratulations, you are now a stereotype.

[Rogah]

Well, wouldn't you have to say that drinking alcohol or smoking cigarettes shows equally poor character?Drinking alcohol to excess, yes - but keep in mind that most people are capable of enjoying a glass or two of wine with dinner (or a beer or two during a game) without suffering any ill effect.

In other words, when someone does cocaine they do it for the single purpose of obtaining a mind inducing "high". But alcohol can be consumed responsibly - and is arguably healthy in moderation.

And while I am no fan of smoking, you can't honestly be comparing smoking a cigarette to ingesting cocaine, are you..? I've never smoked cigarettes, but as far as I know, they don't get you high.

[masomenos]

Drinking alcohol to excess, yes - but keep in mind that most people are capable of enjoying a glass or two of wine with dinner (or a beer or two during a game) without suffering any ill effect.

In other words, when someone does cocaine they do it for the single purpose of obtaining a mind inducing "high". But alcohol can be consumed responsibly - and is arguably healthy in moderation.

And while I am no fan of smoking, you can't honestly be comparing smoking a cigarette to ingesting cocaine, are you..? I've never smoked cigarettes, but as far as I know, they don't get you high.

Oh, I think that most people drink and smoke because of the buzz they get off of it. Is that really any different than someone snorting cocaine for the high? It's just a matter of altering moods really, in my opinion.

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Yeah, right. I'm sure you would feel the same way if it were Cheney's daughter os Bush's daughter.

Why is it a private matter? Last time I checked, cocaine was illegal. That, my friend, makes it a public matter. And she works for social services. Which means she sould be fired.

Maybe there's some sex tapes of her to go with it. That would be nice, very nice. Girls Gone Wild, VP Style.

it was also illegal for the Bush girls to get into bars underage, who cares, didn't effect their dad's ability to govern, this won't effect Biden's either.

[burmafrd]

comparing snorting cocaine to drinking a beer or smoking a cig/ Maso that is pretty sad even for you.
If you truly believe that then you are seriously warped.
Do you REALLY equate coke to beer and cigs?

[masomenos]

comparing snorting cocaine to drinking a beer or smoking a cig/ Maso that is pretty sad even for you.
If you truly believe that then you are seriously warped.
Do you REALLY equate coke to beer and cigs?

No, I'm not making a broad statement and saying that beer and cocaine are the same thing. But, when it comes to defining someones character, I don't think that either has an effect.

[burmafrd]

So you think that drinking a beer and snorting cocaine are one and the same- really no reason to think badly of someone's charactor for doing either.
Now that is pretty sad.

[Hostile]

No, I'm not making a broad statement and saying that beer and cocaine are the same thing. But, when it comes to defining someones character, I don't think that either has an effect.

So you think that drinking a beer and snorting cocaine are one and the same- really no reason to think badly of someone's charactor for doing either.
Now that is pretty sad.Judas Priest, learn to read.

[masomenos]

So you think that drinking a beer and snorting cocaine are one and the same- really no reason to think badly of someone's charactor for doing either.
Now that is pretty sad.

Me: I'm not making a broad statement and saying that beer and cocaine are the same thing.

You: So you think that drinking a beer and snorting cocaine are one and the same.

:laugh1:

Rather than just saying "that's sad", maybe you should explain why cocaine use is a signifier of poor character.

[burmafrd]

But, when it comes to defining someones character, I don't think that either has an effect.

Whats wrong Hos= maso is the one saying it says nothing bad about you if you are snorting cocaine= do you agree?

[burmafrd]

so snorting cocaine says nothing bad about your charactor. sure.

[masomenos]

so snorting cocaine says nothing bad about your charactor. sure.

Like I said, feel free to explain why cocaine use is a sign of poor character.

[Rogah]

Oh, I think that most people drink and smoke because of the buzz they get off of it. Is that really any different than someone snorting cocaine for the high? It's just a matter of altering moods really, in my opinion.I'd say yes, there is a difference - and a significant one at that. There is a difference between something that can affect your mood versus something used for the sole purpose of getting high. Hell, the Dallas Cowboys affect my mood (for better or for worse) much more than any cigarette or drink ever could.

I disagree that most people drink for the buzz they get off it. I average about 10 to 12 drinks per week and it has been years since I got so much as buzzed.

[burmafrd]

ok lets connect a few dots for you.

1. Cocaine is not only illegal, its a felony EVERYWHERE in the US.
Possession of it is NOT like weed

2. By buying it you are supporting the drug cartels and their violence.

3. You are deliberately risking jail time and the virtual ruination of your life not just by doing it but by risking getting addicted to it and all that goes with THAT.

4. By taKING THOSE RISKS and doing cocaine you show very poor judgement and very poor realization of the consequences of your actions.

And you say that that says nothing about that persons charactor.

[ShiningStar]

No, I'm not making a broad statement and saying that beer and cocaine are the same thing. But, when it comes to defining someones character, I don't think that either has an effect.


I think it does if you think about it. Someone itching for a cigarette will go and buy a pack or ask for one. Someone itching for some coke? They will kill for that stuff, steal, you name it. Yeah thats a character builder right there.

Also it shows which person is weaker and which isnt. Thats character isnt it?

[ShiningStar]

Like I said, feel free to explain why cocaine use is a sign of poor character.


Because most people do it to follow the crowd, which shows they are weak willed people.

[sbark]

Like I said, feel free to explain why cocaine use is a sign of poor character.

being illegal does not begin to enter into your equation?

....Attorney General of Delaware....Beua Biden III........

Delaware Attorney General (http://attorneygeneral.delaware.gov/)
The Delaware Department of Justice - Attorney General's Office. ... Delaware Department of Justice - Joseph R. "Beau" Biden, III, ... About AG Biden ...
attorneygeneral.delaware.gov/ - 26k - Cached (http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:mWtPpPAtC8kJ:attorneygeneral.delawa re.gov/+delaware+ag&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us) - Similar pages (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:*:IE-SearchBox&rlz=1I7GGLL_en&q=related:attorneygeneral.delaware.gov/)

.........ahhhh it will all go away, she wont even be "sterotyped"

[ShiningStar]

Oh, I think that most people drink and smoke because of the buzz they get off of it. Is that really any different than someone snorting cocaine for the high? It's just a matter of altering moods really, in my opinion.


A lot of peopel drink to escape reality too. Did you factor that in?

[xout]

It doesn't matter... Biden himself could be caught on tape snorting coke and it'd end up being A-Okay in the end. Sweep Sweep Sweep.

Now Bush on the other hand.. his daughters slip up a few years back and the main stream media tears them apart.

[Hostile]

But, when it comes to defining someones character, I don't think that either has an effect.

Whats wrong Hos= maso is the one saying it says nothing bad about you if you are snorting cocaine= do you agree?Nice attempt to deflect attention away from your inability to read, but I wasn't commenting on anything Maso said. So now you show that not only can you not read, you can't pay attention either. Not your most stellar day.

[ShiningStar]

Where not even talking inability to read, try the ability to wrap your mind around the fact someone is saying someone who snorts coke vs cigarettes arent the factor that makes for bad character. Wow, way to deflect someone just isnt looking around any state.

How many people get ramped up on coke and go out and do stupid things vs people getting ramped on a good cigarette.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Nice attempt to deflect attention away from your inability to read, but I wasn't commenting on anything Maso said. So now you show that not only can you not read, you can't pay attention either. Not your most stellar day.

Actually it is a normal day for him...trust me.

[sbark]

She probably got "lit up" so she could turn out the lights for earth day......:rolleyes:

Whatever happened to AlGores son that got nailed for drugs a couple of yrs ago...........

.........did that "just all go away" also????

I'm sure Biden's older brother Beau Biden--AG of Delaware will be able to do the same miracle.......

[ShiningStar]

Illusionists Sbark, they make things disappear.

[Hostile]

Where not even talking inability to read, try the ability to wrap your mind around the fact someone is saying someone who snorts coke vs cigarettes arent the factor that makes for bad character. Wow, way to deflect someone just isnt looking around any state.

How many people get ramped up on coke and go out and do stupid things vs people getting ramped on a good cigarette.Actually I was talking about his inability to read.

I have made no comments about cocaine vs. alcohol or cigarettes. None, zero, zip, nada.

Please try and keep up.

[Hostile]

Actually it is a normal day for him...trust me.I wouldn't know.

[CanadianCowboysFan]

I am sure bumfard has done a few illegal things in his life so he should not be casting aspersions on others.

[ShiningStar]

Actually I was talking about his inability to read.

I have made no comments about cocaine vs. alcohol or cigarettes. None, zero, zip, nada.

Please try and keep up.


OKay maybe you were going for the small part of the picture, i read the whole thing two and i came to the same conclusion. The bigger picture was omg i cant believe hes comparing someone who takes coke against someone who smokes cigarettes. Sure he probably had to reread it twice and still wanted to give Maso a chance to explain it better.

But thats kewl, you know what do i know maybe you were laughing with Burm. But my point was the bigger picture was omg, how do you expect me to formulate any coherent thought after something that non sensical.

But you got me there.

[masomenos]

ok lets connect a few dots for you.

1. Cocaine is not only illegal, its a felony EVERYWHERE in the US.
Possession of it is NOT like weed

2. By buying it you are supporting the drug cartels and their violence.

3. You are deliberately risking jail time and the virtual ruination of your life not just by doing it but by risking getting addicted to it and all that goes with THAT.

4. By taKING THOSE RISKS and doing cocaine you show very poor judgement and very poor realization of the consequences of your actions.

And you say that that says nothing about that persons charactor.

1. In my conversation with Rogah, he said that the character issues didn't stem from the fact that cocaine was illegal. That's his opinion and it's one that I share. Just because you do something that's against the rules, that doesn't mean that you're a bad person.

2. Your "support" is negligible and it's impossible to know where your money goes after you sped it. It's like saying that when you buy Nike products you are supporting child labor in sweat shops.

3. You also risk ruining your life by getting addicted to alcohol or tobacco. Sure, there's no jail time unless you drink and drive or are a violent drunk, but I'd say that the substances all equate fairly well on this point.

4. Character and judgment are not the same thing. As I said, I won't argue that doing cocaine is poor judgment.

[masomenos]

I think it does if you think about it. Someone itching for a cigarette will go and buy a pack or ask for one. Someone itching for some coke? They will kill for that stuff, steal, you name it. Yeah thats a character builder right there.

Also it shows which person is weaker and which isnt. Thats character isnt it?

I've never done cocaine and I never would, but I have known a couple of people who did it with some frequency. They were not like you describe at all. I know that it's easier to rely on the stereotype of an inner city crack fiend who's mugging women in order to get cash, but really it's just a stereotype. Does it happen? Sure, but I think it's more of the exception than the rule.

I also don't think that drug use means that you are "weak".

[ShiningStar]

I've never done cocaine and I never would, but I have known a couple of people who did it with some frequency. They were not like you describe at all. I know that it's easier to rely on the stereotype of an inner city crack fiend who's mugging women in order to get cash, but really it's just a stereotype. Does it happen? Sure, but I think it's more of the exception than the rule.

I also don't think that drug use means that you are "weak".


So you poll all of the coke users of the world from 2 people and i try to give you examples of how it is in the city and we have to go with your model. I dont think so. Taking drugs does show you are weak unless you got the stuff flung on you. Im sorry, from a young age we are taught drugs are bad. We see the bad videos in school and depending where you live, you can see it in real life.

From cops childrens', to old people, to successful businessmen, drugs happen, and yes, something triggered them to do it, making them weaker to not have the willpower to say no.

Willpower is a character straight. A fair amount of people on drugs and continue to take drugs show their weakness. Some can get off, so we know it can be done, and some cant, furthering their weakness. Weakness being what, another character flaw.

Weakness for cigarettes, okay, you are not a bad person. Weakness for a drug that in your normal state of mind, you will do some low handed things to make sure you got money for your next score, yeah, bad character.

Oh yeah, drinking and beating a person, whats your view there? Same as a regular drinker who sits, drinks and doesnt bother anyone?

[sbark]

1. In my conversation with Rogah, he said that the character issues didn't stem from the fact that cocaine was illegal. That's his opinion and it's one that I share. Just because you do something that's against the rules, that doesn't mean that you're a bad person.

2. Your "support" is negligible and it's impossible to know where your money goes after you sped it. It's like saying that when you buy Nike products you are supporting child labor in sweat shops.

3. You also risk ruining your life by getting addicted to alcohol or tobacco. Sure, there's no jail time unless you drink and drive or are a violent drunk, but I'd say that the substances all equate fairly well on this point.

4. Character and judgment are not the same thing. As I said, I won't argue that doing cocaine is poor judgment.

.......her poor judgment in an isolated case, a isolated mistake would not, agreed be a case against her Character........but it appears her judgment in numerouse case prior to this incident, and numerous mistakes of judgement inside this incident do preclude the ability to judge her character, very easily in fact........

it would appear she is using "daddy's" and big brother's positions as a blanket--which in itself tells one alot about her character......

[ethiostar]

[quote]So you poll all of the coke users of the world from 2 people and i try to give you examples of how it is in the city and we have to go with your model. I dont think so. Taking drugs does show you are weak unless you got the stuff flung on you. Im sorry, from a young age we are taught drugs are bad. We see the bad videos in school and depending where you live, you can see it in real life. As someone who worked in the service industry as a bartender for over 10 years, i can tell you 1st hand that i've worked with and waited on a lot of people who did it. They were students, lawyers, doctors, accountants, etc.... Not once have i seen any of these people mug or rob in order to obtain the drug. They spent their own money, almost always hard earned to buy it.

There are a lot of people who use it and yes some have such a bad habit and have lost so much control that they have lost everything they had and everyone they loved in the process. Some of these people have turned to a life of crime to support their habits.

Based on my exposure to the scene, there are a lot of otherwise responsible individuals who snort cocain moderately and/or irregularly while at the same time holding a job. Not unlike people who consume alcohol on a regular basis.

From cops childrens', to old people, to successful businessmen, drugs happen, and yes, something triggered them to do it, making them weaker to not have the willpower to say no.Or some people go through phases when they experiment with different kinds of things, drugs included.

It also depends on what type of drugs you're talking about. Not all drugs are created equal. After a long day of work, some people enjoy a cold one, or a sip of whiskey, while others prefer to take a couple of puffs from a marijuana joint. Outside of the legality issue, i see no difference among these scenarios.

Willpower is a character straight. A fair amount of people on drugs and continue to take drugs show their weakness. Some can get off, so we know it can be done, and some cant, furthering their weakness. Weakness being what, another character flaw. I agree with you here in that any kind of addiction is usually not good. But you can extend that to other things as well. Such as addiction to certain types of food that are not good for you, or TV and internet surfing which takes you away from using your time in more productive ways.

Weakness for cigarettes, okay, you are not a bad person. Weakness for a drug that in your normal state of mind, you will do some low handed things to make sure you got money for your next score, yeah, bad character.
Again, yes some people do resort to that but those people IMO make up a small percentage of people who use various types of drugs.

Oh yeah, drinking and beating a person, whats your view there? Same as a regular drinker who sits, drinks and doesn't bother anyone? Not sure what this part is about but what about someone who snorts cocaine or smokes marijuana but doesn't bother anyone?

[ShiningStar]

[quote=ShiningStar;2707948]

As someone who worked in the service industry as a bartender for over 10 years, i can tell you 1st hand that i've worked with and waited on a lot of people who did it. They were students, lawyers, doctors, accountants, etc.... Not once have i seen any of these people mug or rob in order to obtain the drug. They spent their own money, almost always hard earned to buy it.

There are a lot of people who use it and yes some have such a bad habit and have lost so much control that they have lost everything they had and everyone they loved in the process. Some of these people have turned to a life of crime to support their habits.

Based on my exposure to the scene, there are a lot of otherwise responsible individuals who snort cocain moderately and/or irregularly while at the same time holding a job. Not unlike people who consume alcohol on a regular basis.

Or some people go through phases when they experiment with different kinds of things, drugs included.

It also depends on what type of drugs you're talking about. Not all drugs are created equal. After a long day of work, some people enjoy a cold one, or a sip of whiskey, while others prefer to take a couple of puffs from a marijuana joint. Outside of the legality issue, i see no difference among these scenarios.

I agree with you here in that any kind of addiction is usually not good. But you can extend that to other things as well. Such as addiction to certain types of food that are not good for you, or TV and internet surfing which takes you away from using your time in more productive ways.

Again, yes some people do resort to that but those people IMO make up a small percentage of people who use various types of drugs.

Not sure what this part is about but what about someone who snorts cocaine or smokes marijuana but doesn't bother anyone?


And ytou proved my point, well two, just from a small perspective does not give you a huge pool to draw from and yes, will power is a character trait, and those people, as i proved were weak willed.

[ethiostar]

And ytou proved my point, well two, just from a small perspective does not give you a huge pool to draw from and yes, will power is a character trait, and those people, as i proved were weak willed.

No it doesn't but what's the alternative, relying on videos you watched in school?

What exactly is it that you proved?

But, anyway, yes will power is a personal trait, i never tried to argue that. What i was trying to say was that most of us don't exercise that will power in every aspect of our lives all the time. If it's not illegal drugs it's prescription drugs or alcohol. If it's not drugs, it's foods that are not good for us. If it's not food, it's too much sodas that are bad for your teeth, your stomach and your overall health. Some don't exercise enough, some watch too much TV, etc.... By that definition, the majority of us are weak willed.

Also, some willingly try different things for a certain period of time, even though whatever it is might not be ideal for their health. They want to experience it. It doesn't mean they are going through some sort of temporary loss of will power.

[ScipioCowboy]

What is really being argued here? There are a few key points in this discussion:

1) Cocaine and alcohol are not remotely comparable unless the alcohol is being imbibed in excess.

2) Using cocaine is very poor judgment, regardless of the extent to which the potential user is curious.

3) Although cocaine usage does not make one a bad person, it is an immoral behavior due to its self-destructive nature.

4) This is not news. This is a family matter.

[ChldsPlay]

Don't care.

Didn't care when Bush twins were off doing whatever it was they were accused of.

Didn't care when Clinton had Cigar-gate.

Etc, etc, etc.

I agree with the first 2.
The third, while I don't care about what or who Clinton does with his cigars, I do care about perjury and obstruction of justice.

[ajk23az]

No, I'm not making a broad statement and saying that beer and cocaine are the same thing. But, when it comes to defining someones character, I don't think that either has an effect.

:lmao2: Let's go sign Matt Jones then. He hasn't done anything wrong! /sarcasm

[masomenos]

What is really being argued here? There are a few key points in this discussion:

1) Cocaine and alcohol are not remotely comparable unless the alcohol is being imbibed in excess.

2) Using cocaine is very poor judgment, regardless of the extent to which the potential user is curious.

3) Although cocaine usage does not make one a bad person, it is an immoral behavior due to its self-destructive nature.

4) This is not news. This is a family matter.

1) I disagree. If used in moderation I don't see any difference at all, outside of the legality.

2) I agree that using cocaine is poor judgment, but I don't think that judgment and character are tied together.

3) Again, moderation. I know that moderation is difficult because of the addictive nature of the drug, but that's true with cigarettes and alcohol too.

4) Agreed.

[masomenos]

:lmao2: Let's go sign Matt Jones then. He hasn't done anything wrong! /sarcasm

And what of that horrible Michael Irvin, shall we just wipe him out of team history?

[masomenos]

No it doesn't but what's the alternative, relying on videos you watched in school?

What exactly is it that you proved?

But, anyway, yes will power is a personal trait, i never tried to argue that. What i was trying to say was that most of us don't exercise that will power in every aspect of our lives all the time. If it's not illegal drugs it's prescription drugs or alcohol. If it's not drugs, it's foods that are not good for us. If it's not food, it's too much sodas that are bad for your teeth, your stomach and your overall health. Some don't exercise enough, some watch too much TV, etc.... By that definition, the majority of us are weak willed.

Also, some willingly try different things for a certain period of time, even though whatever it is might not be ideal for their health. They want to experience it. It doesn't mean they are going through some sort of temporary loss of will power.

Good responses.

[iceberg]

I am sure bumfard has done a few illegal things in his life so he should not be casting aspersions on others.

he also shopped at wal mart once....the *******.

[Hostile]

he also shopped at wal mart once....the *******.
:confused:

I must have missed something. I see Wal-Mart mentioned often.

Wal-Mart = Evil????

[ethiostar]

:confused:

I must have missed something. I see Wal-Mart mentioned often.

Wal-Mart = Evil????

It's from the 'Global Warming Alarmist...' thread in reference to what CanadianCowboyfan had stated.

I don't know how much you care to go back and read it but it's there

http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=149134

Posts #52, 65, and 78 will give you a good idea but it is throughout the entire thread.

[SuspectCorner]

Judas Priest, learn to read.

"Sir, we take exception to this." ~ Halford Tipton & Downing et al


H_mpt8xyZVI
Priest from '77 (Sin After Sin)... not terribly shabby for 32-year old metal, eh?

[burmafrd]

Poor judgement. I call it weakness. I also call it a stain on a person's charactor that they decide to do illegal drugs. Love how the liberal point of view about drugs never seems to appy elsewhere. As regards one persons contributions to the drug cartel+ then we do not need to do anything about the environment since WHAT DOES ONE PERSON DOING MATTER?
And that then can be applied to just about everything.

[burmafrd]

And yes I have done some illegal things like run stop signs when no one is around and speed on the highway. Typical liberal response that everything is the same- the BS about MORAL RELATIVITY that can equate cocaine to drinking a beer.

[ethiostar]

And yes I have done some illegal things like run stop signs when no one is around and speed on the highway. Typical liberal response that everything is the same- the BS about MORAL RELATIVITY that can equate cocaine to drinking a beer.

Can you ever say anything without pigeonholing people who disagree with you on anything into such a narrow category? I'm pretty sure that if you were to disagree with Rush Limbaugh one a single topic you will resort to calling him a typical liberal as well.

Who said everything is the same? Hostile is right, you need to learn how to read.

[SuspectCorner]

See. This is what you get when you have Dems in charge of things.

I think it's great that the children of Republican pols don't use illegal mind-altering substances.

Oh - wait... <apologies for borrowing your tagline, trickblue>

http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/3426.html

http://sonic.net/~doretk/Issues/00-03-SPR/congress.html

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,979921,00.html?iid=digg_share

Folks, our last three presidents have pretty much all admitted to the use of illegal drugs (fortunately for one - he "didn't inhale"... right?). Drugs know no geographic, economic, political, racial, ethnic, or religious boundaries. The vast majority of parents work to actively shape and guide their children regarding decision-making. But we cannot make all those decisions for them - especially our adult children. When we turn them loose we hope for the best but take nothing for granted.

When one of our high-level acting government representatives is using drugs - THAT is a big story.

JMO

[sbark]

for the left among us .....truth is relative

The relativists don't want there to be any bad; they don't want there to be any wrong. Therefore, there can't be any good...........

[ajk23az]

And what of that horrible Michael Irvin, shall we just wipe him out of team history?

You don't think that Michael Irvin had character issues back then? (he still does) :lmao2:

Irvin isn't the best role model for your kid. 96' cocaine arrest, 98' alleged assault, 96' sexual assault, 00' police find drugs in apartment.

Yup, Irvin has no character faults at all. :rolleyes: Thats what we are talking about, character faults. Doing/having cocaine in itself is a fault.

Not to mention, doing cocaine is a FELONY!

Your leftist bias is screaming at full capacity right now.

[peplaw06]

Can you ever say anything without pigeonholing people who disagree with you on anything into such a narrow category? I'm pretty sure that if you were to disagree with Rush Limbaugh one a single topic you will resort to calling him a typical liberal as well.

Who said everything is the same? Hostile is right, you need to learn how to read.You guys are wasting your time with burm. He won't be reasoned with.

[Rogah]

As someone who worked in the service industry as a bartender for over 10 years, i can tell you 1st hand that i've worked with and waited on a lot of people who did it. They were students, lawyers, doctors, accountants, etc.... Not once have i seen any of these people mug or rob in order to obtain the drug. They spent their own money, almost always hard earned to buy it. With all due respect, what makes you think you have the first clue whether or not someone at your bar has obtained all their money through hard work and honesty? We could be talking about anything from a doctor defrauding an insurance company to a student lifting 20 bucks from a roommate's wallet.

What do you think an accountant is going to do..? Belly up to the bar and announce "hey, 'keeper... I just overbilled 10 clients $50 each to help fund my cocaine addiction... it's Miller Time..!!"...? :D

[Rogah]

1) I disagree. If used in moderation I don't see any difference at all, outside of the legality. Let's see... in moderation, alcohol is considered to be somewhat healthy and has no mind-altering side effects. Cocaine, even in moderation, has no health benefits, is extremely addictive, and is taken for the purpose of getting high. There's your difference :D

[Cajuncowboy]

If this is true, people need to let Biden and his family deal with this privately. This has no bearing on his ability to function in his capacity as VP, IMO.

[Rogah]

If this is true, people need to let Biden and his family deal with this privately. This has no bearing on his ability to function in his capacity as VP, IMO.I agree 100% - although I will find it very interesting to observe the media's reaction to this incident (if it is shown to be true, which I have not signed on to entirely right now). For example, Bristol Palin had a child out of wedlock and she was still making headlines as recently as last week, almost 5 months after the election and she has long since returned to Alaska.

[Cajuncowboy]

I agree 100% - although I will find it very interesting to observe the media's reaction to this incident (if it is shown to be true, which I have not signed on to entirely right now). For example, Bristol Palin had a child out of wedlock and she was still making headlines as recently as last week, almost 5 months after the election and she has long since returned to Alaska.

Well, it's a double standard. We all know that. Anyone who doesn't see the bias in the MSM is just a fool. There is a reason that Foxnews is kicking the collective butts of MSNBC and CNN. At least they present the whe entire picture.

Obviously the left loonies that reside on this forum will come in with their assorted :lmao2: and :laugh1: or maybe even a :lmao: or two but even they know, unless they have lost the last brain cell in their head that it's true.

[ethiostar]

[QUOTE]With all due respect, what makes you think you have the first clue whether or not someone at your bar has obtained all their money through hard work and honesty? We could be talking about anything from a doctor defrauding an insurance company to a student lifting 20 bucks from a roommate's wallet.

Fair enough. Although, i can vouch for people i've known very well and have become very good friend with, i can't be too sure about the clientele in general. People steal money in different manners, but my guess is they do it various reasons, including drug use but it can also be to buy a newer car, a bigger house, a big flat screen TV, etc.... If someone is stealing my money, i don't care or less what they're using the money for.

What do you think an accountant is going to do..? Belly up to the bar and announce "hey, 'keeper... I just overbilled 10 clients $50 each to help fund my cocaine addiction... it's Miller Time..!!"...? :D

See response above. My point was and IMO, most people who use drugs don't resort to robbing and mugging people in order to obtain them. Most people i knew and currently know who use various types of drugs work for a living most of whom are professionals and make enough money to support their drug use.

On a side note, i don't know if you've ever bartended but you would be surprised the kind of stuff people tell you. Sometimes i felt like a psychologist who listens to peoples problems and at times i felt like a preist listening to confessions:).

[ShiningStar]

[quote=Rogah;2708162]


Fair enough. Although, i can vouch for people i've known very well and have become very good friend with, i can't be too sure about the clientele in general. People steal money in different manners, but my guess is they do it various reasons, including drug use but it can also be to buy a newer car, a bigger house, a big flat screen TV, etc.... If someone is stealing my money, i don't care or less what they're using the money for.



See response above. My point was and IMO, most people who use drugs don't resort to robbing and mugging people in order to obtain them. Most people i knew and currently know who use various types of drugs work for a living most of whom are professionals and make enough money to support their drug use.

On a side note, i don't know if you've ever bartended but you would be surprised the kind of stuff people tell you. Sometimes i felt like a psychologist who listens to peoples problems and at times i felt like a preist listening to confessions:).


and the kids that take drugs? oh right, we're going off the model of drug users you know. Which when doing research about drugs is all you need to know. Sorry again it doesnt work off what you know even as a bartender.

[WoodysGirl]

and the kids that take drugs? oh right, we're going off the model of drug users you know. Which when doing research about drugs is all you need to know. Sorry again it doesnt work off what you know even as a bartender.
I think the overall point ethiostar is making is there's no tried and true stereotype for drug users. There are functional drug users as well as the cracked out kind. I've seen both.

And to reiterate what others have said, this is a family matter.

As for the Bristol Palin reference, only thing I've seen about her was some blurb about her discussing her status as a single mother. Tho I do think there was something there about her and the boyfriend breaking up. Only trolled the headline, so I don't know the details.

[ethiostar]

I think the overall point ethiostar is making is there's no tried and true stereotype for drug users. There are functional drug users as well as the cracked out kind. I've seen both.


Thank you WG. I don't know how else i needed to say it but you but it succinctly.

[ShiningStar]

Thank you WG. I don't know how else i needed to say it but you but it succinctly.


If that was teh conversation, the meaning of my posts to directed poster was that drugs can make for weak willed people which is a character trait.

[ethiostar]

But, anyway, yes will power is a personal trait, i never tried to argue that. What i was trying to say was that most of us don't exercise that will power in every aspect of our lives all the time. If it's not illegal drugs it's prescription drugs or alcohol. If it's not drugs, it's foods that are not good for us. If it's not food, it's too much sodas that are bad for your teeth, your stomach and your overall health. Some don't exercise enough, some watch too much TV, etc.... By that definition, the majority of us are weak willed.

Also, some willingly try different things for a certain period of time, even though whatever it is might not be ideal for their health. They want to experience it. It doesn't mean they are going through some sort of temporary loss of will power.

If that was teh conversation, the meaning of my posts to directed poster was that drugs can make for weak willed people which is a character trait.

I've already addressed that. I've also said that IMO, the problem is addiction which doesn't have to be limited to illegal drug use. Also see the bolded part in the second paragraph above, i don't need to repeat myself.

[zrinkill]

This would concern me only if his daughter was Vice President.

[Rogah]

See response above. My point was and IMO, most people who use drugs don't resort to robbing and mugging people in order to obtain them. Most people i knew and currently know who use various types of drugs work for a living most of whom are professionals and make enough money to support their drug use. Fair enough, but I do feel the need to point out that my comments were not referring to drugs in general, but rather one specific hard drug, cocaine. For example, I would be much more likely to trust a guy who lit up a joint every now and then than I would someone who was doing cocaine. It is my opinion that not all drugs are created equal.

[Rogah]

There is another point I would like to mention regarding character as it relates to this specific instance, but I am hesitant to do so as I do not want to assume Ashley Biden is guilty when I haven't seen a lick of solid evidence. Having said that...

If this accusation is true, I think it demonstrates extremely poor character on her part to engage in an activity that would be extremely embarrassing and potentially damaging to her father, a man who is one heartbeat away from being the leader of the free world - not to mention the uncomfortable position it puts her half-brother in, as Attorney General of the state where the alleged misdeed took place. Especially given that she is a 27 year old adult and should be more responsible.

But please be aware that the above is a hypothetical. The evidence thus far is flimsy at best, and we haven't even had the chance to listen to any sort of rebuttal, so I continue to extend the presumption of innocence. As someone pointed out in another forum, the NY Post is the same publication that broke the Michelle Obama "lobster" scandal, which ended up being completely false.

I just enjoy good debates even when based on hypotheticals - I think people here have great ideas and thoughts which are fun to throw around :D

[ethiostar]

It also depends on what type of drugs you're talking about. Not all drugs are created equal. After a long day of work, some people enjoy a cold one, or a sip of whiskey, while others prefer to take a couple of puffs from a marijuana joint. Outside of the legality issue, i see no difference among these scenarios.


A post from yesterday.

Fair enough, but I do feel the need to point out that my comments were not referring to drugs in general, but rather one specific hard drug, cocaine. For example, I would be much more likely to trust a guy who lit up a joint every now and then than I would someone who was doing cocaine. It is my opinion that not all drugs are created equal.

I think we're in agreement here, almost word for word:eek::)

[ethiostar]

There is another point I would like to mention regarding character as it relates to this specific instance, but I am hesitant to do so as I do not want to assume Ashley Biden is guilty when I haven't seen a lick of solid evidence. Having said that...

If this accusation is true, I think it demonstrates extremely poor character on her part to engage in an activity that would be extremely embarrassing and potentially damaging to her father, a man who is one heartbeat away from being the leader of the free world - not to mention the uncomfortable position it puts her half-brother in, as Attorney General of the state where the alleged misdeed took place. Especially given that she is a 27 year old adult and should be more responsible.

But please be aware that the above is a hypothetical. The evidence thus far is flimsy at best, and we haven't even had the chance to listen to any sort of rebuttal, so I continue to extend the presumption of innocence. As someone pointed out in another forum, the NY Post is the same publication that broke the Michelle Obama "lobster" scandal, which ended up being completely false.

I just enjoy good debates even when based on hypotheticals - I think people here have great ideas and thoughts which are fun to throw around :D

I agree with you 100%. As unfair as it might be to ask her to live in the straight and arrow all the time, she is related to people in politics and in high :)levels of government. At the very least, try and use some personal discretion in regards to where and with whom you do things which might cause problems to your family.

[ethiostar]

I was thinking that this thread needed something and it just hit me.......

http://i386.photobucket.com/albums/oo303/pumango/drugsrbad.jpg

Hey, some humor interspersed with serious dialogue never hurts anyone.

[Rogah]

I think we're in agreement here, almost word for word:eek::)God help us both..!! :D :D

[sbark]

God help us both..!! :D :D

:eek: .....you might get "sterotyped".........

[SuspectCorner]

If this is true, people need to let Biden and his family deal with this privately. This has no bearing on his ability to function in his capacity as VP, IMO.

I just love it when you're right. But when you're Right - not so much. :D

[MetalHead]

The Daily Kos is reporting that is not the daughter who is a cokehead,but actually Mrs Biden herself.

[masomenos]

You don't think that Michael Irvin had character issues back then? (he still does) :lmao2:

Irvin isn't the best role model for your kid. 96' cocaine arrest, 98' alleged assault, 96' sexual assault, 00' police find drugs in apartment.

Yup, Irvin has no character faults at all. :rolleyes: Thats what we are talking about, character faults. Doing/having cocaine in itself is a fault.

Not to mention, doing cocaine is a FELONY!

Your leftist bias is screaming at full capacity right now.

Err, you don't really understand my response do you?

[masomenos]

Let's see... in moderation, alcohol is considered to be somewhat healthy and has no mind-altering side effects. Cocaine, even in moderation, has no health benefits, is extremely addictive, and is taken for the purpose of getting high. There's your difference :D

And what about cigarettes?

[Rogah]

And what about cigarettes?What about 'em..? Do people who smoke cigarette get high off of them..? Are they significantly mind-altering in nature..? Are people killing each other on the streets and the Mexican border for cigarettes..?

[masomenos]

What about 'em..? Do people who smoke cigarette get high off of them..? Are they significantly mind-altering in nature..? Are people killing each other on the streets and the Mexican border for cigarettes..?

Yes, I think that people do smoke cigarettes for the buzz or high that they get from it. That's why they are so addictive, they make you feel good. A cigarette may never make you hallucinate but neither will cocaine in moderate doses. Some students use it as a study aid, it's not like LSD. Just because people kill each other for it, that doesn't make the substance inherently bad. People kill for all kinds of reasons, money, religion, politics, and just plain hatred.

As an abstract example, I doubt that anyone would make the argument that 1995 Honda Civics (the most stolen car) are the problem behind chop shops and car thieves. The action surrounding the item does not define the nature, good or bad, behind the item.

[Dallas]

No kidding. Just like Palin and her daughters.

Double Standards but I do agree that, like Sarah Palin, this should be an internal matter.


I agree that this is a family matter and should be left alone.


It's really to bad the same folks can't leave Sarah and her family alone.



Oh we can't do thaaaat. :rolleyes:

[ninja]

The Daily Kos is reporting that is not the daughter who is a cokehead,but actually Mrs Biden herself.

Even better! Although, her excuse would be that without drugs she could never have lasted with that idiot as her husband. Can't blame her there.

[Cajuncowboy]

I just love it when you're right. But when you're Right - not so much. :D

I must be your favorite poster then. :p:

[Rogah]

Yes, I think that people do smoke cigarettes for the buzz or high that they get from it.You cannot possibly be comparing the pleasurable effects of a cigarette to the high one experiences from cocaine, are you..? You could smoke a pack of cigarettes a day and while that is certainly unhealthy, it won't alter your mind, induce hallucinations or have anywhere near the effects that cocaine would.
That's why they are so addictive, they make you feel good. A cigarette may never make you hallucinate but neither will cocaine in moderate doses. Some students use it as a study aid, it's not like LSD. Just because people kill each other for it, that doesn't make the substance inherently bad. People kill for all kinds of reasons, money, religion, politics, and just plain hatred. You seem to be grasping onto anything you possibly can to deflect the attention away from cocaine. Constantly trying to change the subject is the sign of a weak debating position.

[ScipioCowboy]

1) I disagree. If used in moderation I don't see any difference at all, outside of the legality.

2) I agree that using cocaine is poor judgment, but I don't think that judgment and character are tied together.

3) Again, moderation. I know that moderation is difficult because of the addictive nature of the drug, but that's true with cigarettes and alcohol too.

4) Agreed.

So what is a "moderate" amount of cocaine? And what are the consequences (both positive and negative) of cocaine usage beyond simply getting addicted and getting high?

Admittedly, I have no experience with cocaine usage and little experience with cocaine users.

So enlighten me as to its potential benefits. I'm genuinely curious.

[masomenos]

You cannot possibly be comparing the pleasurable effects of a cigarette to the high one experiences from cocaine, are you..? You could smoke a pack of cigarettes a day and while that is certainly unhealthy, it won't alter your mind, induce hallucinations or have anywhere near the effects that cocaine would.
You seem to be grasping onto anything you possibly can to deflect the attention away from cocaine. Constantly trying to change the subject is the sign of a weak debating position.

I haven't changed the subject at all. I'm not debating the benefits of using cocaine, just the idea that using cocaine is no more of a character flaw than other self-destructive habits like drinking and smoking cigarettes.

You're wrong about smoking a pack a day not altering your mind, that's where addiction comes into play. It's also why heavy smokers get nervous, sweaty and agitated when they can't have a smoke when they 'need' it. It's the same way with heavy drinkers. That's why I told Scip, it's just about moderation.

The only difference is what, the societal acceptance and the possibility of hallucinations?

The subject that I'm addressing hasn't changed at all. I just don't see the difference in character between a person who is does some coke at a party from time to time and the person who drinks a little too much on the weekends with his friends.

[masomenos]

So what is a "moderate" amount of cocaine? And what are the consequences (both positive and negative) of cocaine usage beyond simply getting addicted and getting high?

Admittedly, I have no experience with cocaine usage and little experience with cocaine users.

So enlighten me as to its potential benefits. I'm genuinely curious.

I have no idea what a moderate amount of cocaine is, but I do know that it's possible to take doses that simply make you feel like you can accomplish anything. That's why some students use it as a study aid, it makes them incredibly alert and highly motivated.

Of course there are health consequences with using cocaine, especially long term. Outside of the high, there are no benefits, but that's true of tobacco too. I'm not advocating cocaine use, I'm just saying that the person engages in occasional cocaine use is of no worse character than the person who's smoking a pack a day.

[peplaw06]

I have no idea what a moderate amount of cocaine is, but I do know that it's possible to take doses that simply make you feel like you can accomplish anything. That's why some students use it as a study aid, it makes them incredibly alert and highly motivated.

Of course there are health consequences with using cocaine, especially long term. Outside of the high, there are no benefits, but that's true of tobacco too. I'm not advocating cocaine use, I'm just saying that the person engages in occasional cocaine use is of no worse character than the person who's smoking a pack a day.No offense, but you're being a little pollyann-ish disregarding the legality of it like you are.

I don't think you can separate the fact that one is illegal and the others aren't when you start throwing out subjective topics like judging someone's character.

[Cajuncowboy]

I have no idea what a moderate amount of cocaine is, but I do know that it's possible to take doses that simply make you feel like you can accomplish anything.

Things like jumping off a 50 story building and bouncing back up. Sounds like a safe amount to me.

[Rogah]

I haven't changed the subject at all. I'm not debating the benefits of using cocaine, just the idea that using cocaine is no more of a character flaw than other self-destructive habits like drinking and smoking cigarettes. Well, I am just going to have to disagree there.
You're wrong about smoking a pack a day not altering your mind, that's where addiction comes into play.I am probably using incorrect terminology and I have no desire to play semantic games, so let me say this... Cocaine is done with the intent to induce a significantly mind altering state, whereas cigarettes may alter your mood but are certainly not as mind-altering as cocaine. I would have no problem sharing the roads with a smoker, but I certainly don't want someone high on cocaine in my rear view mirror, would you?
The only difference is what, the societal acceptance and the possibility of hallucinations? If that is really what you think is the "only difference" between cigarettes and cocaine, then we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

[MetalHead]

The Onion is now reporting that Joe Biden,Tim Guithner and Chris Dodd are cast members on the next season of "Survivor,Washington DC"....developing.

[trickblue]

This should be a private family matter... and it largely will be I guess...

If this had been one of the Bush twins, it would have been front page news...

[masomenos]

No offense, but you're being a little pollyann-ish disregarding the legality of it like you are.

I don't think you can separate the fact that one is illegal and the others aren't when you start throwing out subjective topics like judging someone's character.

So, would you say that the the legal status of an action is what determines whether that action is "good" or "bad" ?

[theogt]

Yeah, right. I'm sure you would feel the same way if it were Cheney's daughter os Bush's daughter.

Why is it a private matter? Last time I checked, cocaine was illegal. That, my friend, makes it a public matter. And she works for social services. Which means she sould be fired.

Maybe there's some sex tapes of her to go with it. That would be nice, very nice. Girls Gone Wild, VP Style.Get that Danny White. The dirty liberal rat!!!11111

LOL.

[masomenos]

Things like jumping off a 50 story building and bouncing back up. Sounds like a safe amount to me.

Look up the total amount cocaine use in the U.S. and compare it to the number of cocaine related deaths.

The argument behind your statement is "Cocaine impairs your judgment and makes you do things that you can't really do". In some cases that's true, but in some cases it's also true with alcohol.

[masomenos]

I am probably using incorrect terminology and I have no desire to play semantic games, so let me say this... Cocaine is done with the intent to induce a significantly mind altering state, whereas cigarettes may alter your mood but are certainly not as mind-altering as cocaine. I would have no problem sharing the roads with a smoker, but I certainly don't want someone high on cocaine in my rear view mirror, would you?


So that's where the character issues come into play for you, the intent to significantly alter your state of mind?

[Rogah]

So that's where the character issues come into play for you, the intent to significantly alter your state of mind?Please don't put words in my mouth. I am only describing some of the many differences between cocaine and cigarettes, which you seem to think have identical effects on individuals - not to mention society.

You have tried to compare the mind altering effects of smoking cigarettes to the mind altering effects of cocaine. I hope you are just being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative, and that you are not so grossly ignorant of the consequences of drug usage to think the two are equitable.

[masomenos]

Please don't put words in my mouth. I am only describing some of the many differences between cocaine and cigarettes, which you seem to think have identical effects on individuals - not to mention society.

You have tried to compare the mind altering effects of smoking cigarettes to the mind altering effects of cocaine. I hope you are just being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative, and that you are not so grossly ignorant of the consequences of drug usage to think the two are equitable.

I didn't put words into your mouth, I just asked if that was what you were saying. Do you think that is the line where character comes into play?

Again, I'm not arguing for cocaine use, I'm taking the topic strictly from the point of view of character. As a signifier of character I don't think that there is a difference between the person who does a couple of lines at a party and the person who smokes or drinks for the "buzz". Yes there are different effects, yes cocaine is stronger, but the principle behind the use is the same.

[peplaw06]

So, would you say that the the legal status of an action is what determines whether that action is "good" or "bad" ?Not everything is so black and white, but generally, yes. If you are convicted of a crime, that is much more of a mark on your character than something that you may do that isn't breaking a law.

And generally that is where our laws come from. Criminal acts are considered more reprehensible than legal ones. I thought that was pretty obvious.

There's a reason most employers ask if you've ever been convicted of a felony/crime, and why some do preliminary drug screens. Just as there's a reason they don't ask to take blood to get a blood alcohol content reading, or test you to see if they find nicotine in your system.

[Rogah]

I didn't put words into your mouth, I just asked if that was what you were saying. Do you think that is the line where character comes into play?I am not going to answer such a leading question and define that as the one set "line" which crosses the boundry into it being a poor character choice.

My opinion is based on a wide variety of the effects - both personal and societal - or taking cocaine in its various forms.
Again, I'm not arguing for cocaine use, I'm taking the topic strictly from the point of view of character. As a signifier of character I don't think that there is a difference between the person who does a couple of lines at a party and the person who smokes or drinks for the "buzz". Yes there are different effects, yes cocaine is stronger, but the principle behind the use is the same.I have to respectfully disagree. The principle is nowhere near the same because the level of high is nowhere near the same.

[masomenos]

Not everything is so black and white, but generally, yes. If you are convicted of a crime, that is much more of a mark on your character than something that you may do that isn't breaking a law.

And generally that is where our laws come from. Criminal acts are considered more reprehensible than legal ones. I thought that was pretty obvious.

There's a reason most employers ask if you've ever been convicted of a felony/crime, and why some do preliminary drug screens. Just as there's a reason they don't ask to take blood to get a blood alcohol content reading, or test you to see if they find nicotine in your system.

That's a rather subjective look at character though. Go through this hypothetical with me...

Let's say that you and I get arrested for different drug related crimes, maybe you were in possession of cocaine and I was running around with bags of heroin in my pocket. We both get charged with felony possession do some time in jail and all of that. Down the road, Ron Paul gets elected and says the federal government shouldn't control drug laws, that it should be up to the states. Lucky for you, our state decides to legalize the possession of cocaine but the keep heroin illegal. A week later you and I are walking around again and get stopped by the cops, you have coke on you and I have my trusty heroin. Now I get arrested again and you're sent on your way.

Our actions haven't changed at all, it's only the potential consequences that have changed. That would mean that your character is decided based on the potential consequences of an action, not the action itself. I believe that character has to be defined on more solid grounds than that.

[peplaw06]

That's a rather subjective look at character though. Go through this hypothetical with me...

Let's say that you and I get arrested for different drug related crimes, maybe you were in possession of cocaine and I was running around with bags of heroin in my pocket. We both get charged with felony possession do some time in jail and all of that. Down the road, Ron Paul gets elected and says the federal government shouldn't control drug laws, that it should be up to the states. Lucky for you, our state decides to legalize the possession of cocaine but the keep heroin illegal. A week later you and I are walking around again and get stopped by the cops, you have coke on you and I have my trusty heroin. Now I get arrested again and you're sent on your way.

Our actions haven't changed at all, it's only the potential consequences that have changed. That would mean that your character is decided based on the potential consequences of an action, not the action itself. I believe that character has to be defined on more solid grounds than that.

Judging someone's character is a task rife with subjectivity. You have your opinions, and I have mine. But if you're looking at it generally, most people are more wary of the character of a person who has been convicted of a crime.

If the crime I was convicted of becomes legal, it doesn't mean I didn't break the law at that time. If I were to tell the truth to the question if I'd been convicted of a felony, I would have to say yes. If I explained myself, and stated that the crime I was convicted of was no longer a crime, then that is up to the person I tell it to to give it the proper weight in their mind. Some may say, no big deal, it's legal now. Some may say, you broke the law, period. I doubt I would fault the person either way.

The comparison you're making to alcohol and cigarettes isn't analogous to this set of circumstances. Alcohol was only prohibited for a little over a decade, and cigarettes have never been completely illegal.

[masomenos]

The comparison you're making to alcohol and cigarettes isn't analogous to this set of circumstances. Alcohol was only prohibited for a little over a decade, and cigarettes have never been completely illegal.

The issue of legality isn't something that I'm taking into consideration. I think that an action, if it is really going to soil your character, has to do so on it's own merit. If you rob someone, you're a bad person for stealing from them, not because you broke a law.

[peplaw06]

The issue of legality isn't something that I'm taking into consideration. I think that an action, if it is really going to soil your character, has to do so on it's own merit. If you rob someone, you're a bad person for stealing from them, not because you broke a law.Why is stealing bad?

[masomenos]

Why is stealing bad?

You're violating someones sense of security and your engaging in an act that you, in all likelihood, wouldn't want to have committed against you.

[masomenos]

I am not going to answer such a leading question and define that as the one set "line" which crosses the boundry into it being a poor character choice.

My opinion is based on a wide variety of the effects - both personal and societal - or taking cocaine in its various forms.
I have to respectfully disagree. The principle is nowhere near the same because the level of high is nowhere near the same.

I think I'll have to take that position as well, we're not getting anywhere at this point, lol.

[peplaw06]

You're violating someones sense of security and your engaging in an act that you, in all likelihood, wouldn't want to have committed against you.And...?

[zrinkill]

This thread reminds me of the "Bush daughters partying" thread in reverse.

Saddens me how much both "sides" act alike when their guy is in power.

[masomenos]

And...?

And what?

[JBond]

I'd actually argue that your character is what dictates your actions.

That said, I don't think that putting some powder in your nose is a sign of poor character.

Would you care to redo that last line. You forgot the rolling eye guy or snarky sun glass guy.

I think you are just playing around because being a coke head does carry some problems with it. I have had to fire several over the years at various jobs. All the issues except one were regarding internal theft. The other guy dropped a TV and we had a mandatory drug test policy for accidents.

Having my own small little company now, I will tell you I drug test everyone, and I mean everyone in my company. Even temp labor has to pass.

[peplaw06]

And what?Why is it bad to violate someone's sense of security and do something to them that you wouldn't want done to yourself?

The point is... criminal laws are generally considered to be a reflection of our society's morals, i.e. what is generally considered to be acceptable behavior and what is not. And at this point in history, use of controlled substances (even in moderation) and possession of the substance is considered to be unacceptable behavior. Use and possession of cigarettes and alcohol (subject to some controls) is generally considered acceptable behavior.

[masomenos]

Why is it bad to violate someone's sense of security and do something to them that you wouldn't want done to yourself?

The point is... criminal laws are generally considered to be a reflection of our society's morals, i.e. what is generally considered to be acceptable behavior and what is not. And at this point in history, use of controlled substances (even in moderation) and possession of the substance is considered to be unacceptable behavior. Use and possession of cigarettes and alcohol (subject to some controls) is generally considered acceptable behavior.

To address the 2nd paragraph first...

As I said, I think that is a far too subjective view of morality and character. Basically, you're saying that it would be of poor character for me to use cocaine in the United States, but if I went to Columbia (where it's legal) then my character wouldn't be harmed at all.

I find it hard to defend moral relativism.

I would argue that it's wrong to violate someones sense of security because you are infringing on one of his most basic needs. Why is that wrong? Because those basic needs that we have our essential to life, both as an individual and as a society. As to the "golden rule" I think that it's our most basic measure of justice and, from a philosophical perspective, you can't undertake an action without justifying that action for others.

[peplaw06]

To address the 2nd paragraph first...

As I said, I think that is a far too subjective view of morality and character. Basically, you're saying that it would be of poor character for me to use cocaine in the United States, but if I went to Columbia (where it's legal) then my character wouldn't be harmed at all.

I find it hard to defend moral relativism. Defining someone's morality and character is a completely subjective task. If you're going to keep complaining about that, you're not going to get too far.

And in my subjective view -- which is one that is influenced by the laws I've lived with all my life -- cocaine use is just a reprehensible in the US as it would be in Colombia, even if it's legal there, because I've always considered it to be illegal.

That said, my views on what is morally acceptable behavior and what isn't doesn't change on the whims of legislators. Abortions are legal, but even if it were suddenly made illegal my opinion of those who have them done wouldn't change much at all.

I would argue that it's wrong to violate someones sense of security because you are infringing on one of his most basic needs. Why is that wrong? Because those basic needs that we have our essential to life, both as an individual and as a society. As to the "golden rule" I think that it's our most basic measure of justice and, from a philosophical perspective, you can't undertake an action without justifying that action for others.You don't think that cocaine use and its effects can threaten other people's sense of security?

The golden rule has less to do with justice than it does with morality. Which goes back to the reason we have criminal laws. What is morally acceptable behavior, and what isn't?

[Bob Sacamano]

To address the 2nd paragraph first...

As I said, I think that is a far too subjective view of morality and character. Basically, you're saying that it would be of poor character for me to use cocaine in the United States, but if I went to Columbia (where it's legal) then my character wouldn't be harmed at all.

I find it hard to defend moral relativism.

I would argue that it's wrong to violate someones sense of security because you are infringing on one of his most basic needs. Why is that wrong? Because those basic needs that we have our essential to life, both as an individual and as a society. As to the "golden rule" I think that it's our most basic measure of justice and, from a philosophical perspective, you can't undertake an action without justifying that action for others.

someone's sense of security doesn't involve breaking the law and leaving it at that

[masomenos]

someone's sense of security doesn't involve breaking the law and leaving it at that

I'm not sure what you're saying.

[Bob Sacamano]

I'm not sure what you're saying.

that it's not wrong to alert people that someone is breaking the law, and filming it

[masomenos]

that it's not wrong to alert people that someone is breaking the law, and filming it

Oh, I agree with that. Once you enter the public realm, you give up your right to privacy. That's not the kind of protection of security that I'm talking about. Pep just asked why I thought stealing was wrong, that's the violation of security that I was referring to.

[Bob Sacamano]

Oh, I agree with that. Once you enter the public realm, you give up your right to privacy. That's not the kind of protection of security that I'm talking about. Pep just asked why I thought stealing was wrong, that's the violation of security that I was referring to.

:grab:

[masomenos]

Defining someone's morality and character is a completely subjective task. If you're going to keep complaining about that, you're not going to get too far.

I disagree, I think that there's a fairly clear line that defines a moral action from an immoral one. I mean if you're willing to say that morality is completely subjective then you'd have to say that, while you don't agree with their position, racists are fully justified in considering interracial marriages to be immoral.

And in my subjective view -- which is one that is influenced by the laws I've lived with all my life -- cocaine use is just a reprehensible in the US as it would be in Colombia, even if it's legal there, because I've always considered it to be illegal.

That said, my views on what is morally acceptable behavior and what isn't doesn't change on the whims of legislators. Abortions are legal, but even if it were suddenly made illegal my opinion of those who have them done wouldn't change much at all.

So you let laws influences your decision on what is moral in some cases but not in others? That doesn't sound like morality based on law at all, but rather that your sense of morals just happens to agree with the law sometimes.

You don't think that cocaine use and its effects can threaten other people's sense of security?

Can it? Yes. Does it always? No.

The same is true with alcohol. If I'm staying at home, downing half a bottle of vodka and playing videogames with my friends, am I a threat to someones security? No. If I'm downing half a bottle of vodka and then driving to the club, am I a threat to the security of others? Yes.

If someone is using cocaine recreationaly at home and they stay at home, are they a threat? No. If they go out driving after snorting some powder? Yes.

The golden rule has less to do with justice than it does with morality. Which goes back to the reason we have criminal laws. What is morally acceptable behavior, and what isn't?

I'd argue that justice is what defines the morality of an action.



All responses are in non-bold type.

[peplaw06]

I disagree, I think that there's a fairly clear line that defines a moral action from an immoral one. I mean if you're willing to say that morality is completely subjective then you'd have to say that, while you don't agree with their position, racists are fully justified in considering interracial marriages to be immoral. That's ludicrous. With all the different morality and belief systems that are out there, as well as the variance in laws from society to society, hell even state to state, there's no way that there is a clear line between what is moral and what is immoral.

Take intentional killing for example, probably the one thing that you would say you absolutely should not do. But even in America, there are varying shades of gray with that though. Different degrees of murder, and sometimes the law holds it justifiable. In other cultures, an intentional killing may be completely justified because of a belief system.

There are no clear lines, except person to person. I have my set of morals and you have yours.

So you let laws influences your decision on what is moral in some cases but not in others? That doesn't sound like morality based on law at all, but rather that your sense of morals just happens to agree with the law sometimes. Of course laws influence what is moral and what is not.... To think otherwise is naive. But my morality is not entirely based on law. Rather typically the law tends to parallel my morality. It's a circular argument. Morals are influenced by laws and laws are influenced by society's generally accepted morals. And they're often evolving systems.

Can it? Yes. Does it always? No.

The same is true with alcohol. If I'm staying at home, downing half a bottle of vodka and playing videogames with my friends, am I a threat to someones security? No. If I'm downing half a bottle of vodka and then driving to the club, am I a threat to the security of others? Yes.Again, there are shades of gray. If you're downing a bottle of vodka and playing videogames, you could be a threat to someone's security if say you were very competitive and the lowered inhibitions and videogame playing led to a fight.

But then again, if you steal a nickel from someone, and they never know, have you violated their sense of security? Have you still committed an immoral act? I mean you are of the opinion that stealing is absolutely bad right?

Or would you justify it based on the amount stolen, the knowledge of the victim, etc.?

If someone is using cocaine recreationaly at home and they stay at home, are they a threat? No. If they go out driving after snorting some powder? Yes. They could be a threat to their spouse/kids. So I don't think you can absolutely say that someone using at home isn't a threat.

I'd argue that justice is what defines the morality of an action. I think you got it backwards. Justice is blind. Morality depends largely on the circumstances seen, hence it is subjective.

[BrAinPaiNt]

http://www.neowin.net/forum/fun/die_thread_die.jpg

[masomenos]

That's ludicrous. With all the different morality and belief systems that are out there, as well as the variance in laws from society to society, hell even state to state, there's no way that there is a clear line between what is moral and what is immoral.

Take intentional killing for example, probably the one thing that you would say you absolutely should not do. But even in America, there are varying shades of gray with that though. Different degrees of murder, and sometimes the law holds it justifiable. In other cultures, an intentional killing may be completely justified because of a belief system.

I completely disagree, you're view of morality lacks any definition. If there's no clear line between what is moral and immoral, wouldn't that make our laws (which you say are based on morality) completely arbitrary? And what if my beliefs happen to be in conflict with the law? My view would have to be held on equal grounds. It's ridiculous.

With killing, again I would say that you are violating a basic need/right of another person. That is immoral. Is it wrong to kill someone in self defense? No. If you need me to explain why, I'll be happy to.

There are no clear lines, except person to person. I have my set of morals and you have yours.

Everyone may have their own set of morals, but that doesn't mean that all morals are equal. If you and I believe that having sex with children is wrong, but some wacky polygamist sect thinks that it's ok to take 12 year old girls as their wife, we don't just shrug and say "Well, gosh, if that's what they believe". It's just absurd.

Of course laws influence what is moral and what is not.... To think otherwise is naive. But my morality is not entirely based on law. Rather typically the law tends to parallel my morality. It's a circular argument. Morals are influenced by laws and laws are influenced by society's generally accepted morals. And they're often evolving systems.

Again, this view of morality makes laws and morals completely arbitrary. If someone doesn't agree with the law, oh well, he can still be moral as long as he's acting within his own beliefs.

Again, there are shades of gray. If you're downing a bottle of vodka and playing videogames, you could be a threat to someone's security if say you were very competitive and the lowered inhibitions and videogame playing led to a fight.

But then again, if you steal a nickel from someone, and they never know, have you violated their sense of security? Have you still committed an immoral act? I mean you are of the opinion that stealing is absolutely bad right?

Or would you justify it based on the amount stolen, the knowledge of the victim, etc.?

They could be a threat to their spouse/kids. So I don't think you can absolutely say that someone using at home isn't a threat.

Neither character nor morality is defined by potential actions. It doesn't matter if I may get in a car after drinking too much, it matters if I do. There's no shade of gray there, if the action occurs then it's bad, if it doesn't happen then it's not bad. If my drinking or coke use infringes on my other responsibilities then it's bad.

And yes, stealing a nickle is immoral. Is it as immoral as stealing $100,000? No, because a different level of security has been violated.

I think you got it backwards. Justice is blind. Morality depends largely on the circumstances seen, hence it is subjective.

If you really believe that morality is subjective then you can't even make an argument against cocaine use, or anything else for that matter.

Justice absolutely is not blind, justice is the basis of our laws, hence the "criminal justice system" and "justice of the peace". Criminal laws are in place to administer punishment when someones most basic rights/needs have been violated.


Responses in non-bold.

[MetalHead]

This just in...Ashley Biden will make her big screen debut in "Trainspotting II:The Coke Manifesto"

[peplaw06]

It's clear this isn't going anywhere.

It's a fundamental difference... you think that defining someone's morality or character is an objective task, I believe it's subjective. Also, I believe you're conflating the issue of morality and legality now, when before you were disregarding the legality of something in determining the morality of a person. I can't square that.

And acknowledging that there are many different belief systems doesn't mean you approve of someone's moral framework. I think you're mixing those concepts up as well. I identify that some people's morals are different from mine. For example, you believe that cocaine use in moderation is ok. I understand that. But if someone who is using it in moderation in their own home is caught and charged, I'm not excusing that. If it were an objective standard, then we would likely see eye to eye.

The only thing I'll leave you with is a question... If it's such an objective task, why are there so many differences from religion to religion, culture to culture, society to society, state to state, etc.?

[masomenos]

The only thing I'll leave you with is a question... If it's such an objective task, why are there so many differences from religion to religion, culture to culture, society to society, state to state, etc.?

The same reason that all of those different religions can have different Gods and yet, by necessity, some of them are wrong. The nature of God is an objective fact, just like morality. Just because people believe their God is real, that doesn't make it so. Just because people believe they are acting morally, that doesn't make it so.

[ethiostar]

The same reason that all of those different religions can have different Gods and yet, by necessity, some of them are wrong. The nature of God is an objective fact, just like morality. Just because people believe their God is real, that doesn't make it so. Just because people believe they are acting morally, that doesn't make it so.

So which God is real?

[trickblue]

The same reason that all of those different religions can have different Gods and yet, by necessity, some of them are wrong. The nature of God is an objective fact, just like morality. Just because people believe their God is real, that doesn't make it so. Just because people believe they are acting morally, that doesn't make it so.

So which God is real?

I don't think he attempted to define that...

It is what it is in regards to belief...

[ScipioCowboy]

So which God is real?

A question best-suited for PM exchange.;)

[ethiostar]

I don't think he attempted to define that...

It is what it is in regards to belief...

Oh, i thought he was making a different kind of argument. :o:

A question best-suited for PM exchange.;)

Probably so, forgot about Zone rules when it comes to religion talk. :D

[masomenos]

Oh, i thought he was making a different kind of argument. :o:



What, you mean you haven't been able (or wanted) to follow my 20 post commentary covering everything from law, to cocaine, to morality, to justice, to the argument against subjectivity?

;)

Oh, and character. I think that's what started it all.

[peplaw06]

The same reason that all of those different religions can have different Gods and yet, by necessity, some of them are wrong. The nature of God is an objective fact, just like morality. Just because people believe their God is real, that doesn't make it so. Just because people believe they are acting morally, that doesn't make it so.

So who's morals are right? Yours? Mine? Someone else's? They're obviously different.

Let me guess... yours? Funny. Guess we'll disagree there too. Sounds real objective to me.

[JBond]

So who's morals are right? Yours? Mine? Someone else's? They're obviously different.

Let me guess... yours? Funny. Guess we'll disagree there too. Sounds real objective to me.

Mine are. Now that settles it.

[masomenos]

So who's morals are right? Yours? Mine? Someone else's? They're obviously different.

Let me guess... yours? Funny. Guess we'll disagree there too. Sounds real objective to me.

I never claimed to have the right set of morals, heck I don't even always follow my own morals, but I do think that some basic "true" moral positions can be arrived at through logic.

[peplaw06]

I never claimed to have the right set of morals, heck I don't even always follow my own morals, but I do think that some basic "true" moral positions can be arrived at through logic.Do you agree that morals vary from person to person....? Not whether they should vary, rather if they do vary.

Because I'm thinking you have the meanings of objective vs. subjective mixed up.

[masomenos]

Do you agree that morals vary from person to person....? Not whether they should vary, rather if they do vary.

Because I'm thinking you have the meanings of objective vs. subjective mixed up.

Ok, let's go back to the religion example.

If you have an atheist, a Hindu, a Christian and a Buddhist, they are all going to have different points of view as to the nature of God. Their opinions, their beliefs, are subjective. The reality of God, the truth, is objective. It is not influenced by the opinions or beliefs, it just is what it is.

Of course morals vary from person to person, just as religion does. That doesn't mean that all points of view are right or that they should be held in equal standing.

[bbgun]

This story is starting to smell like that McCain volunteer who beat herself up.

[peplaw06]

Ok, let's go back to the religion example.

If you have an atheist, a Hindu, a Christian and a Buddhist, they are all going to have different points of view as to the nature of God. Their opinions, their beliefs, are subjective. The reality of God, the truth, is objective. It is not influenced by the opinions or beliefs, it just is what it is. I agree with this. There either is a God or there isn't. That is an objective standard, although it's one that no one on Earth can objectively tell you the answer to.

And I agree that the beliefs and opinions, aside from whether there is or isn't a God, is subjective. But a subjective standard means that it's up to the opinions or beliefs of the person making the judgment. For example, the existence of God, since no one can tell you objectively that there is or isn't, it's up to the beliefs/opinions of the person making the call. If I'm looking at it right now, my beliefs are subjective, which will become objective at some point in time.... when I'm either proven right or wrong.

Of course morals vary from person to person, just as religion does. That doesn't mean that all points of view are right or that they should be held in equal standing.That's the point I'm making. The classification of what is moral versus what is immoral is a subjective standard if opinions and beliefs differ, and it could be a different classification depending on the person making the judgment.

I'm not saying it means all points of view are right, rather it means that all points of view are or should be tolerated or considered. If you ultimately deem that someone else's point of view is wrong for you, then that's fine. But that's where the subjectivity comes into play.

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Do you see the existence of God as objective? I see it as subjective because no one will ever know. There's really nothing to point to to prove or disprove the existence of God.

[peplaw06]

Do you see the existence of God as objective? I see it as subjective because no one will ever know. There's really nothing to point to to prove or disprove the existence of God.I see it as subjective right now. But I believe that at some point you will know objectively. I guess if your particular belief is that an afterlife doesn't exist, then it will always be subjective.

Then again, these are just my subjective beliefs... ;)

[ScipioCowboy]

Do you see the existence of God as objective? I see it as subjective because no one will ever know. There's really nothing to point to to prove or disprove the existence of God.

Whether or not a statement can be known absolutely is irrelevant for purposes of its objective nature.

Much of human knowledge is not and cannot be directly observed, such as the Big Bang or macro-evolution or Intelligent Design. This type of knowledge is logical extrapolation or inference based on the limited phenomena that we are capable of directly observing.

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Whether or not a statement can be known absolutely is irrelevant for purposes of its objective nature.

Much of human knowledge is not and cannot be directly observed, such as the Big Bang or macro-evolution or Intelligent Design. This type of knowledge is logical extrapolation or inference based on the limited phenomena that we are capable of directly observing.

Um, it isn't that the existence of God can be known absolutely, it cannot be known at all.

At re the scientific theories you set out like Big Bang and macro evolution, you have some data and facts upon which to base the theory. No fact can point to the existence of God (and no the stories in the Bible do not count).

Don't get me started on Creationism 2.0 aka Intelligent Design.

[ScipioCowboy]

Um, it isn't that the existence of God can be known absolutely, it cannot be known at all.

At re the scientific theories you set out like Big Bang and macro evolution, you have some data and facts upon which to base the theory. No fact can point to the existence of God (and no the stories in the Bible do not count).

Don't get me started on Creationism 2.0 aka Intelligent Design.

Not true.

For instance, I can know that the statues on Easter Island were almost certainly created by man even though I know nothing about the people who built them. The statues on Easter Island are clearly the product of intelligent agents, regardless of whether or not I am capable of understanding anything about the people who acted as the intelligent agents.

"Data" and "facts" are simply the product of an epistemology--a way of knowing and understanding the world. There are many different types of epistemologies, such as the sciences, history, the humanities, philosophy, etc.

Each one has its own unique way of creating knowledge and establishing fact. These ways may not always be compatible across all epistemologies, but they are all rationally valid.

The argument for design (also known as the teleological argument for the existence of God) has been made by numerous Christian, non-Christian, and secular thinkers throughout the history of the world. From a philosophical standpoint, ID is perfectly valid.

[CanadianCowboysFan]

What does Easter Island have to do with the price of tea in China. We all know humans built them, how is the only question. That has no relevance to the existence of God.

If something cannot be proven and is based solely on faith, it is subjective as there is no way to test the theory.

There is nothing you can point to which will prove or disprove the existence of God. As a result, it cannot be objective.

"Objectivity is both an important and very difficult concept to pin down in philosophy. While there is no universally accepted articulation of objectivity, a proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are "mind-independent"—that is, not the result of any judgments made by a conscious entity. Put another way, objective truths are those which are discovered rather than created. While such formulations capture the basic intuitive idea of objectivity, neither is without controversy"

"Subjectivity may refer to the specific discerning interpretations of any aspect of experiences. They are unique to the person experiencing them, the qualia that are only available to that person's consciousness. Though the causes of experience are thought to be objective and available to everyone, (such as the wavelength of a specific beam of light), experiences themselves are only available to the subject (the quality of the colour itself)."

[ethiostar]

http://i386.photobucket.com/albums/oo303/pumango/energizer-bunny-page.jpg

[Bob Sacamano]

Um, it isn't that the existence of God can be known absolutely, it cannot be known at all.

At re the scientific theories you set out like Big Bang and macro evolution, you have some data and facts upon which to base the theory. No fact can point to the existence of God (and no the stories in the Bible do not count).

Don't get me started on Creationism 2.0 aka Intelligent Design.

Canada, such a backwards country

[Beast_from_East]

Well, its been 4 days since this story was posted and I have not heard or seen anything about it on any networks, not even FOX.

I think it is safe to say that this story is pure BS.

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Canada, such a backwards country

please elaborate

[Bob Sacamano]

please elaborate

you believe in evolution

[CanadianCowboysFan]

you believe in evolution

yeah that is such backward thinking

[ScipioCowboy]

What does Easter Island have to do with the price of tea in China. We all know humans built them, how is the only question. That has no relevance to the existence of God.

You stated, "Um, it isn't that the existence of God can be known absolutely, it cannot be known at all."

The fact that we cannot fully understand God (defined only as the Creator of the Universe) does not mean that His existence is not a matter of objective reality or that we cannot reasonably infer His existence from the design of the universe.

Similarly, the fact that we cannot fully understand the builders of the Easter Island statues does not mean that their existence is not a matter of objective reality or that we cannot reasonably infer their existence from the design of the statues.

If something cannot be proven and is based solely on faith, it is subjective as there is no way to test the theory.

There is nothing you can point to which will prove or disprove the existence of God. As a result, it cannot be objective.What do you mean by "prove or disprove?" What's your epistemological framework? Whether or not something can be proven depends entirely on your epistemological outlook.

For instance, the existence of George Washington is a matter of historical fact. However, there's no scientific way to prove or disprove the existence of the man we know as George Washington. History and science are two different epistemologies. Two different ways of knowing the world around us. Two different ways of establishing assertions of objective truth.

Furthermore, scientific knowledge is never really proven. It simply exists until something better comes along. The scientific epistemology (in its current state) relies on falsification rather than confirmation.

I'm not delving into the issue of "faith" here. The existence of a Creator God is not necessarily a matter of faith. As I said earlier, many philosophers and thinkers throughout history have offered a number of rational arguments for the existence of God (as a Divine Creator) that have withstood centuries of rigorous scrutiny.

Reasonable people can certainly disagree with these arguments, but they aren't faith-driven...at least not to any greater degree than a purely naturalistic view of reality is faith-driven.

"Objectivity is both an important and very difficult concept to pin down in philosophy. While there is no universally accepted articulation of objectivity, a proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are "mind-independent"—that is, not the result of any judgments made by a conscious entity. Put another way, objective truths are those which are discovered rather than created. While such formulations capture the basic intuitive idea of objectivity, neither is without controversy"

"Subjectivity may refer to the specific discerning interpretations of any aspect of experiences. They are unique to the person experiencing them, the qualia that are only available to that person's consciousness. Though the causes of experience are thought to be objective and available to everyone, (such as the wavelength of a specific beam of light), experiences themselves are only available to the subject (the quality of the colour itself)."Your definition bolsters my position. No where in the definition does it states that objective truth is determined by provability. Objective truth describes assertions of fact that exist independent of our minds, such as God's existence.

In fact, the definition clearly states that objective truth exists independently of our mind's ability to judge it.

[Rogah]

Canada, such a backwards countryI once had a Canadian friend ask me...

Him: "What do Americans really think of Canada?"
Me: "You sure you want an honest answer to that?"
Him: "Yes."
Me: "No matter how upsetting it is?"
Him: "Yes, yes."
Me: "We don't."

:D

[masomenos]

I agree with this. There either is a God or there isn't. That is an objective standard, although it's one that no one on Earth can objectively tell you the answer to.

And I agree that the beliefs and opinions, aside from whether there is or isn't a God, is subjective. But a subjective standard means that it's up to the opinions or beliefs of the person making the judgment. For example, the existence of God, since no one can tell you objectively that there is or isn't, it's up to the beliefs/opinions of the person making the call. If I'm looking at it right now, my beliefs are subjective, which will become objective at some point in time.... when I'm either proven right or wrong.

While no one can tell you, objectively, whether or not God exists or what his nature is, logic can still weed out some possibilities. For instance, let's say that I believed that God was the moon. Using logic, we can figure out whether or not my belief makes sense.

While beliefs on morality are subjective (even though the true nature of morality is not) we can use logic to figure out which moral positions make sense and which do not. If you take a purely subjective stance, then you have to defend all actions. Abortion is ok to the people who think it is. Genocide is ok to the people who think it is. Rape is ok to the people who think it is, etc.

That's the point I'm making. The classification of what is moral versus what is immoral is a subjective standard if opinions and beliefs differ, and it could be a different classification depending on the person making the judgment.

I'm not saying it means all points of view are right, rather it means that all points of view are or should be tolerated or considered. If you ultimately deem that someone else's point of view is wrong for you, then that's fine. But that's where the subjectivity comes into play.

I understand the point that you're making, but logically it doesn't make sense. I agree that most points of view should be tolerated and considered, but ultimately they have to be measured against a single barometer and that's logic. Fact is always based on logic, it has to be, by it's nature. If a position cannot be defended by sound logic, then it can't be true.

Some moral positions cannot be defended by logic, therefor moral relativism can't be true.



Response in non-bold.

[masomenos]

Whether or not something can be proven depends entirely on your epistemological outlook.



Epistemology was the most difficult course that I ever took.

[zrinkill]

You can really learn a lot about people from threads like these.

The phrase "thou dost protest too much", comes to mind.

[trickblue]

You can really learn a lot about people from threads like these.

The phrase "thou dost protest too much", comes to mind.

Many of those that loved to make fun of the Bush twins, consider this a serious "family matter"... much like alphagore's son...

[zrinkill]

Many of those that loved to make fun of the Bush twins, consider this a serious "family matter"... much like alphagore's son...


I was actually talking about the anti-God turn this thread took.

And the lost souls that took it there.

;)

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Your definition bolsters my position. No where in the definition does it states that objective truth is determined by provability. Objective truth describes assertions of fact that exist independent of our minds, such as God's existence.



how can the assertion of God's existence be an assertion of fact where there is no evidence that God exists or does not exist?

[zrinkill]

I once had a Canadian friend ask me...

Him: "What do Americans really think of Canada?"
Me: "You sure you want an honest answer to that?"
Him: "Yes."
Me: "No matter how upsetting it is?"
Him: "Yes, yes."
Me: "We don't."

:D

Stop that ...... CanadaBoys fan will start crying about the unfairness again.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v210/zrinkill/canadiancowboy.jpg

[ScipioCowboy]

how can the assertion of God's existence be an assertion of fact where there is no evidence that God exists or does not exist?

Two things here:

1) God exists independently of our minds; therefore, His existence is a matter of objective fact, regardless of whether or not the assertion of His existence turns out to be true. The veracity of the assertion is not at issue here. Only the nature of the assertion is relevant.

2) There is evidence and rational argumentation for God's existence. Whether or not you choose to believe that evidence is irrelevant to our discussion and a different issue entirely--one that would violate forum rules.

[peplaw06]

While no one can tell you, objectively, whether or not God exists or what his nature is, logic can still weed out some possibilities. For instance, let's say that I believed that God was the moon. Using logic, we can figure out whether or not my belief makes sense.You can use all the logic YOU want... but your use of logic doesn't mean that the person who holds a belief contradictory to yours is going to change their mind based on your logic. Odds are most people come to their set of morals by using their own logic.

While beliefs on morality are subjective (even though the true nature of morality is not) we can use logic to figure out which moral positions make sense and which do not. If you take a purely subjective stance, then you have to defend all actions. Abortion is ok to the people who think it is. Genocide is ok to the people who think it is. Rape is ok to the people who think it is, etc. No. I only have to defend my actions which are based on my set of morals. While I agree that some people believe abortion, genocide and rape is ok, that doesn't mean I have to defend their beliefs. For instance, my moral belief is that recreational cocaine use is bad, yours isn't. I defend your right to have your own set of beliefs, but I don't have to defend your beliefs.

I understand the point that you're making, but logically it doesn't make sense. I agree that most points of view should be tolerated and considered, but ultimately they have to be measured against a single barometer and that's logic. Fact is always based on logic, it has to be, by it's nature. If a position cannot be defended by sound logic, then it can't be true.Morals are not facts. Facts are objective. Morals are subjective. And most people base their morals on logic. It may not be YOUR logic, but most people don't develop sets of morals (rules by which they live their life) indiscriminately.

Some moral positions cannot be defended by logic, therefor moral relativism can't be true.Some may not... and that is where laws come into play. If your moral belief was that genocide, murder, or rape was okay, and the law says otherwise, then you're probably going to be held responsible for your illogical morals. but still doesn't mean that your morals will be changed. If you still hold to those morals, that is your prerogative. I just know that you'll be punished for your actions.

[Cajuncowboy]

A nearly 200 post thread that started out with Biden's daughter snorting coke has turned into a discussion on whether or not God exists.

That should be proof enough that he does.